Status of Cosmic Microwave Background Observations for the Search of Primordial Gravitational Waves
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this article, the authors have provided the status of various experiments/observations for observing B-Mode polarization. The review seems to have included the most prominent observations and their results so far. I recommend this manuscript for publication in the current format.
Author Response
Please see Reviewer1_answers.pdf file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A review paper describing the present state of search for primordial gravity wave modes using the CMB.
Not containing new results to make it of interest to researchers in the field.
Also, not adequate as a review article for professionals outside the field, as it does not have sufficient descriptions of the physics of the phenomena to be observed, as well as missing details of the disturbance effects.
Insufficient references for a review paper.
See notes in the attached pdf file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see Reviewer2_answers.pdf file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
see attached pdf which has specific comments on the manuscript.
The overall manuscript provides a long list of different experiments and their capabilities but does not synthesize anything about their
capabilities or how projects will provide complemantarity. The paper does not mention any muni-messenger observations, except for a brief reference to LIGO and VIRGO which is never followed up upon.
Overall, the paper does not provide any new content or discussion of the evolution of the field. It is a marginal contribution. A substantial rewrite and several new sections synthesizing the relationships between the observatories and the described sensitivities are be required to make this a useful paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see Reviewer3_answers.pdf file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors addressed satisfactorily all comments.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee to the useful comments. I further corrected a few points mainly regarding the english language.
Reviewer 3 Report
The additional clarifications have improved the paper substantially. There are still some spelling and grammar errors that need to be addressed. I have hand edited the document and included the places where language needs to be fixed or clarified.
There is still a dangling part of the end of section 2 (discussing the cross correlation between LIGO/VIRGO and CMB data sets....it starts to talk about how cross-correlation can be powerful, but there are no references to this, and it is never discussed again). Seems like a dangling idea. I think this question is a full paper on its own. Perhaps something should be looped back at the conclusion to at least state that cross-correlation remains an idea to be explored separately.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for the very useful comments that imprved the paper. We applied the suggested corrections. Also, we tried to make the paper more corrected from the spelling and grammar point of view.
Regarding the following comment:
"There is still a dangling part of the end of section 2 (discussing the cross correlation between LIGO/VIRGO and CMB data sets....it starts to talk about how cross-correlation can be powerful, but there are no references to this, and it is never discussed again). Seems like a dangling idea. I think this question is a full paper on its own. Perhaps something should be looped back at the conclusion to at least state that cross-correlation remains an idea to be explored separately. "
This is indeed an unexplored idea and I defenitely agree it would deserve a full paper on its own. We added the note you suggested on the conclusion.
